The lie of evolution, part II

[UTEOTW]

"
You hate my 'quote mining', but here are many by prominent scientists."

I hate your quote mining because it is a dispicible and utterly dishonest practice. Do you really think any "prominent scientists" who accept evolution are really going to go around putting into print things that say that it did not happen? So what do you think the odds are that the quotes accurately reflect the opinions of the scientists in question.

You are like the skeptic who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." Yeah, those words are in there in that order, but when read in context there is a completely different meaning.

Now, when you have a juicy quote that you want me to actually read, please supply me with a link where I can read the quote in full context and give some background that ensures that the scientist in question really accepts evolution and that he really is in a field which makes him an expert on evolution.

Thus far, the quotes that you have provided that have been examined have been shown to be blatently dishonest. One was even made up out of whole cloth. Honesty in your arguments obviously is not a priority for you since you proceed to try the same dishonest practice. So do not expect me to waste any more time on your quotes until you are willing to provide evidence that the quote itself is accurate.

In my opinion, your continuing refusal to provide the requested references for you quotes indicates that even you know that they are not acurate.

"And as far as evolution being almost univerally accepted as scientific fact, that is hogwash. To claim otherwise is blantant dishonesty."

Because you can find a few dissenters means that it is "hogwash" and "dishonest" to claim that evolution is "almost univerally accepted?"

That does not even make sense.

Now if I were claiming that there is no dissent, then you would have a point.

So tell us, what percentage of acceptance among biologists would you consider to meet the threshold of "almost univeral" acceptance? 80%? 90%? 95%? What?

 

[UTEOTW]

"nd here is a recent article 10/20/05 that shows science does not yet understand all that much about genetics. "

First question: Do you thing that the scientists being quoted here consider their work to be a problem for evolution? If the answer is no, on what basis does your source, who is obviously less knowledgable than the ones doing the primary research in the matter, dissent from the opinions of the experts?

From the article "A study from UC San Diego has, once again, showed the functional value of 'junk DNA'."

Great. They have found use for parts of the genome that were previously not known to have a use. Just where is the problem here?

The other thing is this. Finding use for some junk does nothing to persuade against the evidence from "junk" that is used in arguments about evolution.

Again from the article "A separate study – closer to us humans – also found a big surprise in our DNA. Ten years ago researchers were talking about “the human genome” as if there were a commonly-shared genetic code among us all. While that is still largely true, scientists have been stunned by the amount of individual variation."

And...?

This is really a problem for YE. The problem for YE is to explain just where these differences in the genetic code have come from.In your paradigm, there was an initial bottleneck of exactly two individuals. The level of differences in the article could not possibly be contained in two genomes. So where did they come from? You deny that the mutational mechanisms which we advocate are workable. So what is your alternative? It would help to provide some studies that support the mutational rates that you are going to have to assert.

And by the way, it is considered plagarism to use someone else's work as your own. If you are going to spam large copy and paste jobs, you should at least provide a link showing where you got it.

An even better idea would be to frame the argument in your own words and to simply provide a link to your supporting information.

What an original idea to ask you to have an original idea and write it down.

 

[UTEOTW]

"By the way, I also found a great article about the so called "feathered dinosaur" you guys claim shows evolution of birds from dinosaurs."

So you want to use Feduccia as your expert? You do realize that for all of his bluster, that the difference of opinion is that rather than birds being dinos he says that they share the same common ancestor, right? So he thinks that birds are the brothers of dinos rather than the children.

It is a minority opinion with very few supports, but if you wish to take it, fine. Welcome to the world of accepting the truth of evolution.

Now let's just jump into the key new tpublication from Feduccia which has put him back in the news.

"The strongest case for feathered dinosaurs was Sinosauropteryx, found in 1996, which sported a coat of “dino-fuzz.” Some concluded this fuzz provided insulation and pointed to the possibility dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Major journals presented Sinosauropteryx as definitive evidence for feathered dinosaurs, complete with artist renditions of colorful feathery coats on the creatures. “Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers,” said Feduccia. “In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin.”"

Now Sinosauropteryx is asserted to be covered with fine, downy feathers. He says that it is "collagenous fiber" from the skin. But since beta keratin is not expressed in the skin, why is it that biochemical analysis of some of the alledged feathers have shown it to be present? [Schweitzer et al. 1999. Beta-keratin specific immunological reactivity in feather-like structures of the Cretaceous alvarezsaurid, Shuvuuia deserti. Journal of Experimental Zoology 285: 146-157.]

This assertion also ignores that other forms of feathers beyond downy feathers have been observed in the fossil record in dinosaurs. These other forms leave no doubt as to being feathers. Go check out the full set of tail feathers of Caudipteryx zoui.

http://www.student.tue.nl/t/p.kolbeek/caudipteryx.jpg

See them right there just right and below center?

The rest have similarly been addressed. For example the next "problem" in the article is "The most critical link between dinosaurs and birds, according to Feduccia, has been the three-fingered hand pattern. Dinosaurs used digits 1, 2, and 3, but the team found that developing bird wings in the embryo derive from digits 2, 3 and 4."

This was addressed 6 years ago.

Günter P. Wagner* and Jacques A. Gauthierdagger, 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand, PNAS, Vol. 96, Issue 9, 5111-5116, April 27, 1999.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/5111

Vargas & Fallon, The digits of the wing of birds are 1, 2, and 3. a review, J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2005 May 15;304(3):198-205.

 

[Petrel]

What I think is interesting is that JWI initially started this argument by saying that evolution could not possibly occur because even minor differences in genes would be fatal. When this argument spectacularly self-destructed in the face of the evidence, he shifts to the argument that evolution cannot possibly be true because the genetic variation is too great!

However, as with any YE argument, I expect the "mutation is fatal" fallacy to rise from the dead and shamble about in future discussion.

I still would ask JWI if he has changed his mind about his initial position that mutation is always detrimental and always results in loss of specificity. He persists in refusing to answer this simple question, in spite of the fact that his post above regarding variability in the human genome testifies that his initial position was false. I expect this will just be a minor inconvenience, though. . .

 

[UTEOTW]

So, JWI, can I ask you a couple of questions?

Nothing tricky. It might just help us to understand one another better. Similar questions have been raised in the past but not recently.

The first is this. If convincing evidence was to be presented to you which was sufficient to convince you that evolution were true, what would be your reaction? Specifically, because of your current position, would it cause you to lose your faith completely? Or, alternatively, would your faith remain strong enough that you would find some way to accomodate your beliefs with you acceptance of evolution?

The second is this. What kind of evidence would it take for you to accept evolution?

Here is the reason to ask. As far as I know, all of the posters who argue here in favor of an old earth are formed YEers. We all were exposed to what was sufficient evidence to us that evolution is true. We all also had enough faith that we found it necessary to find a way to accomodate both our faith in God with our acceptance that evolution is the means that was used to create the life on earth.

It might help us to calm some nerves for you to reflect upon these two questions for a bit and then get back to us with your answers. This is something that some of us have been through.

What would it take for you and how do you think you would handle it?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, when you can come up with such details for ID and how to test them, let me know. Again, I tried doing just this in a post above, but no one seems interested in accepting my assertions or rejecting them and showing what they should have been.

You finally admitted the truth behind the problem of the evolution theory. You are arguing AGAINST Intelligent Design. Therefore, we might as well not even have a God.

You still haven't explained to me exactly why God would lie in Geneis and say that each plant and each animal reproduced after its own kind. Even if we took Genesis as an allegorical story; what would be the motivation of God, in God' Word to tell one of the most important creations of His (human beings) and tell them that He created everything in the beginning. You still have not explained why He would be specific about a man and woman, Adam and Eve and then continue to show a specific blood line.

When does the Bible quit being an allegorical tall tale and become truthful historically?

Yes, it is a fact that many scientists have been fooled. The Bible is very clear about how smart people have the truth hidden from them. It is clear about how they feel as if they become gods because of what they think is absolute knowledge.

You have absolutely no proof that evolution is nothing more than a theory. I have God's Word that does not mention evolution and tells me a totally different story.

When I said that God may have made a history, you used that and ran with it. What I was trying to say is that God is capable of doing anything and if He decided to make a functioning universe where coal is already in the ground, this is not a lie. It is simply WHAT HE DID. I do not know if He did this, but there is nothing to stop Him from doing this.

I sometimes wonder if God didn't make it difficult for scientists to determine the real creation to test people's faith.

Do you believe that Jesus WAS God and He was the one who created the universe as the Apostle John proclaims? Do you believe God died on the cross to save us from our sins? Do you believe in a literal heaven and hell?

Let's cut to the nitty gritty here and determine each of you who believe in evolution's beliefs about God and about Jesus. I want to find out where the allegory ends and truth begins.

Your turn:

 

[UTEOTW]

"You finally admitted the truth behind the problem of the evolution theory. You are arguing AGAINST Intelligent Design. Therefore, we might as well not even have a God."

Please do not build strawmen by taking my words out of context. You should be thoroughly aware of my position by now, it has been repeated often enough.

I have pointed out previously that I think that the very laws of the universe show evidence of design in their ability to carry out God's will. I have also said that I even think that there must have been intervention at key points along the way to get the specific end result of mankind.

It is the current incarnation of ID ideas to which I object. And I object to them because they are bad scholarship. They proclaim things that simply are not true.

We have been through these same discussions many times previously. It is all more strawmen and taking statements out of context and drawing conclusions that are not warrented. For example, if the creation account is not intended to be literal, then your assertion about making a liar out of God because it is not literal just does not make sense. You are using circular logic.

You and others have tried to drag us down this road many times in the past. And most of us have spent more time answering the distortions than they diserve. Most of us are loathe to not take take any particular part of scripture as literal without a prettty good reason to do so.

So we have answered specifics about this account and that account. Long and detailed posts have been produced trying to explain. But it alsways comes back to the personal attacks, claims that we do not believe the Bible because we do not accept your version of things, claims that we say that God lied, slippery slope fallacies about not believing other parts of the Bible if you take a non-literal approach to the creation.

You go through a series of these slippery slope questions in your post, questions that have been answered before and with answers where you already know that you and I give the same answer. So why kkep asking? I suspect that it is because there are not YE answers to the questions being raised and so instead it is an effort to discredit us in the mind of any lurkers by falsely suggesting that we do not believe in the crucifixion and ressurrection or other things which you know we do belief in.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, when you can come up with such details for ID and how to test them, let me know. Again, I tried doing just this in a post above, but no one seems interested in accepting my assertions or rejecting them and showing what they should have been.

You finally admitted the truth behind the problem of the evolution theory. You are arguing AGAINST Intelligent Design. Therefore, we might as well not even have a God.

You still haven't explained to me exactly why God would lie in Geneis and say that each plant and each animal reproduced after its own kind. Even if we took Genesis as an allegorical story; what would be the motivation of God, in God' Word to tell one of the most important creations of His (human beings) and tell them that He created everything in the beginning. You still have not explained why He would be specific about a man and woman, Adam and Eve and then continue to show a specific blood line.

When does the Bible quit being an allegorical tall tale and become truthful historically?

Yes, it is a fact that many scientists have been fooled. The Bible is very clear about how smart people have the truth hidden from them. It is clear about how they feel as if they become gods because of what they think is absolute knowledge.

You have absolutely no proof that evolution is nothing more than a theory. I have God's Word that does not mention evolution and tells me a totally different story.

When I said that God may have made a history, you used that and ran with it. What I was trying to say is that God is capable of doing anything and if He decided to make a functioning universe where coal is already in the ground, this is not a lie. It is simply WHAT HE DID. I do not know if He did this, but there is nothing to stop Him from doing this.

I sometimes wonder if God didn't make it difficult for scientists to determine the real creation to test people's faith.

Do you believe that Jesus WAS God and He was the one who created the universe as the Apostle John proclaims? Do you believe God died on the cross to save us from our sins? Do you believe in a literal heaven and hell?

Let's cut to the nitty gritty here and determine each of you who believe in evolution's beliefs about God and about Jesus. I want to find out where the allegory ends and truth begins.

Your turn: </font>[/QUOTE]In the book of Genesis, God gives account of exactly how He created "earthly" things. Days #1-6 were filled with activity radiating from the Holy Trinity as He spoke earthly life into being.

Now---over in the book of John the Lord Jesus Christ has a confrontation with a ruler of the Jews named Nicodemus. If you look over in John 3:12, Jesus posed a question to Nic that goes like this

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Thats the question for our friendly evolutionist and others who are not persuaded in a literal "Six Day Creation"

If Genesis 1-11 gives account of the creation of the earth and of mankind on earth----and you chose NOT to believe that account---answer this---how will you believe what Scripture says about the creation of things in Heaven--if you don't believe what the Bible says about the creation of "things visable"---how will you believe when it gives account of the creation of "things invisable"?

Blackbird

 

[Phillip]

I am not trying to entertain "lurkers". I have read these posts and have yet to have a complete answer to where allegorical Bible ends and literal Bible begins.

It is not circular reasoning to repeat what God says in Genesis and state that if evolution were true then God would have lied to us. Genesis is very clear and very specific--naming people, naming places, naming lengths of the lives. Why make all of this up?

What if science finds evidence that there was no cross, will you begin to believe that?

I am not making strawmen here, I am honestly asking the questions. I have yet to hear the answers...it always goes back to science and what scientists "observe", not what the Word of God says.

Even evolutionists agree there are links that are difficult to explain. How do we go from completely inanimate to a living cell. Then you have to have billions of years to make this theory work. But, this is not the point--the point I am making is which would take precidence science or God's Word--if there were a conflict?

You have done the same thing to me and accused me of making a liar out of God when I said that He may have formed a fully functioning universe with oil already in the ground and stars going nova that would have happened a million years ago. This is no different than what I have said about the statements God said in Genesis.

Again, if you have already answered, then point me to specific posts, but I am still waiting to hear your testimony of God coming to Earth and just how much of the Bible is literal and how much (which parts) are not......

I don't imagine many lurkers come by here, so please don't try to assume what I am trying to do here, or what I am thinking.

 

[Michael Hobbs]

What we observe is not always the truth
http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I am not trying to entertain "lurkers". I have read these posts and have yet to have a complete answer to where allegorical Bible ends and literal Bible begins.

What's wrong with saying "I'm not sure" and "here is my opinion?"

Are you longing for a pope?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I am not trying to entertain "lurkers". I have read these posts and have yet to have a complete answer to where allegorical Bible ends and literal Bible begins.

You want me to go through the whole Bible chapter by chapter for you? Because that's about what it would take!

How about since I asked first you provide me with an internally consistent YE creation model that accurately predicts or explains the data we see in the natural world? I asked for this quite a while ago and I'm still waiting. . .

 

[Phillip]

You will find an actual eye-witness account in the book of Genesis in your Bible. That's what I have been trying to tell everybody for all of this time.

How am I supposed to create an accurate model when in reality the creation was obviously supernatural?

Paul of Eugene, I have no idea what you are saying. Would you like to spell it out for me in English?

Petrel, if you want to tell me what you think is true historically in the Bible, it might be easier for you.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
I am not trying to entertain "lurkers". I have read these posts and have yet to have a complete answer to where allegorical Bible ends and literal Bible begins.

You want me to go through the whole Bible chapter by chapter for you? Because that's about what it would take!

How about since I asked first you provide me with an internally consistent YE creation model that accurately predicts or explains the data we see in the natural world? I asked for this quite a while ago and I'm still waiting. . . </font>[/QUOTE]In other words, God's Word cannot explain itself. It requires a man to explain it.

which man?

All cult leaders claim themselves...

But, in the meantime, Bible explains Bible quite sufficiently.

You want a model that conforms to the data? Barry's does quite well, since it was formulated FROM the data. And God, being God, does not lie and the creation supports a straightforward reading of the Bible quite nicely.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
What we observe is not always the truth
http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

I love that illusion---and it makes a great point, too.

 

[Helen]

Then there is one of Barry's favorite illustrations:

An astronomer charges into the math prof's office and declares, "I have just made a discovery! All odd numbers are prime!"

"Oh, really?" questions the mathematician.

"Yes!" exclaims the astronomer. "One is odd, and it is prime, three is odd, and it is prime; five is odd, and it is prime; seven is odd, and it is prime; eleven is odd, and it is prime; thirteen is odd, and it is prime..."

"Whoa!" interrupts the mathematician, "What about nine? It is odd and it is not prime."

"Oh that," responded the astronomer, "that's just observational error."

 

[Phillip]

 

[just-want-peace]

"that's just observational error."

Aha!! Now I understand the delusion of the 6 day creation!!

 

[Phillip]

Right, just-want-peace, what many of the scientists think they see is usually not what really happened.

 

[JWI]

Here are some recent articles that pertain to the
"appearance of age" of the universe the evolutionists like to talk about. There are several different articles here.

Planets Can Form Rapidly 09/12/2005
Observations by the Spitzer Space Telescope, announced in a JPL press release, “pose a challenge to existing theories of giant planet formation, especially those in which planets build up gradually over millions of years.” Three young stars show clearings in dust disks surrounding them, suggesting that gas giant planets inhabit the clearings and must have been formed in a million years or less. Instead of growing slowly like giant redwoods, these new planets must have sprung up quickly like wildflowers, the report describes. This is an update on the 10/18/2004 findings from Spitzer. See also Science Daily and Space.com.

Notice the sources... Science Daily and Space.com

Hardly creationists.

Planets can be formed MUCH quicker than previously thought.

Article #2

And you thought the moon looked old? Think again.

Planets and Moons Suddenly Got Much Younger 10/20/2005
A planet or moon covered with craters just looks old, doesn’t it? Planetary geologists have long relied on crater counts to estimate the absolute ages of surfaces, such as on the moon, Mars, Europa, and every other solid body. Lots of craters meant old. Few craters meant young. Presumably, impacting bodies came in like clockwork and left their marks over the eons. An uncomfortable fact has come to light that disturbs this simple picture like a bolide: most of the craters are secondary impacts.
Picture a big meteor hitting Mars. Did you know that it could toss up enough debris to create 10 million more craters – all from a single event? That’s one of several shocking facts presented by Clark R. Chapman and two colleagues in a Letter to Nature.1 (see also summary on Space.com). Believe it or not, they calculate that some 95% of small craters (1 km in diameter and under) are secondaries, and many of the moderate size craters probably are, too. This means that only a few impactors could quickly saturate a body with craters. It also means that estimating surface ages via crater counts is a lost art, because it just lost its credibility:
Surface ages can be derived from the spatial density of craters, but this association presumes that the craters are made by interplanetary impactors, arriving randomly in time and location across the surface. Secondary craters cause confusion because they contaminate the primary cratering record by emplacing large numbers of craters, episodically, in random and non-random locations on the surface. The number and spatial extent of secondary craters generated by a primary impact has been a significant research issue. If many or most small craters on a surface are secondaries, but are mistakenly identified as primaries, derived surface ages or characteristics of the impacting population size-frequency distribution (SFD) will be in error. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Their mathematical analysis yielded the 95% figure for secondaries. The production of secondary craters on Europa, they found, was “unexpectedly efficient.” Although secondary crater formation on icy bodies was so, they feel that similar secondary crater production occurs on rocky bodies like the Moon and Mars, and granted that, has a ripple effect casting the entire method into doubt:
Our work raises doubts regarding methods that use the lunar small-crater distribution to calibrate other inner Solar System surface ages (for example, Mars). If, as on Europa, lunar and martian secondaries are 95% of the small crater (less than a few kilometres) population, the error bars (and thus derived surface ages) on any residual primary crater population become large (uncertainties are 20 times the measured density value). This uncertainty applies to both the measured population on a martian surface unit and the lunar SFD that supposedly represents absolute age. We emphasize that traditional age-dating analyses still derive robust ages when using large craters (greater than a few kilometres diameter), which are less likely to be secondaries. However, the technique becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to dating tiny geographical units using small craters, which may be mostly secondaries.
As a result, they conclude that “any attempt” to age-date surfaces or characterize the population of impactors may suffer “a significant and perhaps uncorrectable bias” due to the contribution from secondaries. They ended with that case of the single Martian impact that generated 10 million secondaries from 10 to 100 meters in diameter.
Speaking of Mars, the Mars Global Surveyor recently took a sharp image captioned “secondary craters.” Click here for a look.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Bierhaus, Chapman and Merline, “Secondary craters on Europa and implications for cratered surfaces,” Nature 437, 1125-1127 (20 October 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature04069.

Comments- That's enough for now. But there's more to come.